Robert Reich has an idea . . .

. . . that I don't like much. According to the Los Angeles Times he proposes to abolish fees for attending the University of California in exchange for requiring graduates "to pay the university a percentage of their income for a while after college".

It does have one advantage: it would give the university's faculty and administrators a stronger incentive to help graduates become employable. Maybe courses in Arcadian basket-weaving would be cut.

But against that would be the significant disincentive for graduates to work, particularly since the "percentage of their income" would probably be imposed as--given California's predilections--a progressive tax. (Even if the disincentive weren't large, the scheme would encourage postponing income until after "a while" had passed.)

And there would be thorny issues of implementing the scheme. How would the university charge students who left before graduating? How would the university collect from students who became disabled or who became unemployed? How could California collect from graduates who moved out of state or, worse, out of the country?

The other ideas mentioned in the article seem better:

Among the ideas under discussion: Should UC increase its use of online classes? Could bachelor's degrees be earned in three years? Should campuses eliminate small departments that are duplicated elsewhere? Enroll more out-of-state students to raise revenue? Boost research ties with private industry?

More on three-year degrees.

Comments

[Brent]

I think it is a great idea, but one that would be too hard to execute.

The positive is that you can get kids to go to school that would not normally be able to afford it. Kids are short-sighted, and would probably jump at the chance.

However, execution would be next to impossible due to the following reasons:
1) enforcement: currently, if you don't pay for your classes, you get dropped. Under the new plan, you are providing free education in exchange for a student's promise to pay in the future. You have no big stick, save a lawsuit, making kids pay. Good luck with that. The scheme relies on the few homeruns paying for all those sudents that didn't make near as much money. The kid that makes $100 million in their 5th year by selling off a .com company is the one that is going to lawyer up and fight paying you. Lawsuits are expensive.

2) selection bias - if you force this scheme on everyone, really bright students that want to make a lot of money are going to go elsewhere. You will be left with a lot of brilliant kids that want to do social work or grow medical herbs. If the scheme is optional, all of the kids in the engineering and business colleges would pay upfront, and all of the kids in the history and english colleges would take the contract.

I could see this as an option on a case-by-case basis for under-priviledged kids looking to go into a field in need, but then the lawsuit will smack of racism when one of those kids does make it big.

In short, good idea, but unworkable.

[Jack]

Didn't Bill Clinton propose this years ago? And didn't adverse selection immediately occur? Anyway, (future) graduates of UC are not the population most in need of public assistance! If tuition is reasonably low and student loans are available, that should be sufficient incentive for kids to get that college degree.

[Jack]

Sorry, the Clinton plan was different: reimburse an amount of student debt proportional to your income once you graduate, and the plan was optional. I apologize for mixing the issues.

[kyle8]

I don't see that this is any great improvement over incurring massive debt to attend school, both are stupid.

Having more online classes, having more flexible curricula, these are better ideas. I worked my way through college, and that was thirty years ago. I would like to see way in which it would be easier for students today to do the same thing.